China Tries Its Hand At Pre-Crime (bloomberg.com)

schwit1 writes: China's effort to flush out threats to stability is expanding into an area that used to exist only in dystopian sci-fi: pre-crime. The Communist Party has directed one of the country's largest state-run defense contractors, China Electronics Technology Group, to develop software to collate data on jobs, hobbies, consumption habits, and other behavior of ordinary citizens to predict terrorist acts before they occur. "It's very crucial to examine the cause after an act of terror," Wu Manqing, the chief engineer for the military contractor, told reporters at a conference in December. "But what is more important is to predict the upcoming activities." The program is unprecedented because there are no safeguards from privacy protection laws and minimal pushback from civil liberty advocates and companies, says Lokman Tsui, an assistant professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who has advised Google on freedom of expression and the Internet.

Comments

Hmmmm....

[kwiecmmm]

I think I may try to overthrow....

Hey get away from me!!! I didn't do anything!!!!!!

"Tries its hand"? I thought that was communism 101

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> China Tries Its Hand At Pre-Crime

"Tries its hand"? I thought the use of secret internal police (e.g., the Stasi) charged with stamping out thought crime was covered in communism 101.

Can't protect what you don't have

[XXongo]

"The program is unprecedented because there are no safeguards from privacy protection laws and minimal pushback from civil liberty advocates and companies"

That's because China doesn't have privacy protection, or civil liberties.

This is China we're talking about.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[tnk1]

The US also can't convict people based on methods where they violate your rights. The usual path for abuse is parallel construction of a case, once the illegal tip-off let's them know about a target.

In China, however, you don't need to worry about that. They'll just arrest you and use the method that was illegal in the US to gather the evidence to convict you. In China, all of that surveillance is perfectly legal.

For pre-crime, the real problem with pre-crime in the US is that you will never be able to convict someone "beyond a reasonable doubt" unless you have absolutely ironclad scientific proof that the events would have happened the exactly same way as in the prediction, no matter what, every time with perfect accuracy. And then, you will need to explain why you are convicting someone for a crime you could have prevented by simply calling up the victim and telling them to go to a safe location at such and such a time.

Now, with China... they wouldn't have a bit of a problem convicting you of a crime that you had a high, but not perfect probability of committing. That is because to them, stability is more important than individual rights. If the occasional innocent person is thrown in jail, it is totally worth it to them having prevented a large number of crimes. They might even let that person out after a short period of re-education and recheck him for future crimes or seditious thoughts.

Re:Already done in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. If you're driving under the influence you are going to ruin your life and others, it is guaranteed. That isn't thought crime.

Re:Hmmmm....FTFY

[zlives]

hmmm.... I think ....
Hey get away from me!!! I didn't do anything!!!!!!

Re:"Tries its hand"? I thought that was communism

[fyngyrz]

Communism? Are you saying the NSA and FBI are communist organizations?

Re: I actually don't have a big problem with this.

[Type44Q]

Would our prisons continue to be depressing, dangerous places, or would they look more like mental health facilities?

So, instead of failing to rehabilitate (and producing even worse crimininals), they can merely fail to heal the crazies, probably make 'em even crazier in the process (Paxil, anyone?!). Whats not to like?? Hell, the BATFE can even give 'em some guns to play with, give them the "tools" to make some politically-useful headlines... ;)

Technically we already do this in the US

[WillAffleckUW]

It's in all the Fed newsletters.

The fact that we haven't told you about doesn't mean we don't use it, just that we don't tell you you're sheep.

Re:Already done in the U.S.

[KGIII]

I used to be a drinker. I'm also an automotive enthusiast. I've probably, given all the guilty years, driven while intoxicated more often than I've driven sober. 'Tis sad but true. I've zero at-fault accidents but I have been hit while at a stop light. I had a speeding ticket back in the mid-1970s. I have no moving violations. I have two parking tickets, one was when I was not the driver but had let someone use my car - but I'm accountable for both. The second of those tickets was my fault for not taking the time to understand the several signs and parking there anyhow. I accept responsibility for that.

I've woken up still dressed and found my car out of gas and with a dead battery from leaving the lights on. I'd no clue how I got home but there were no dents or reports of accidents so I presume I did not get into any. That's probably the worst of the events. Well, that and driving across a town square. In my defense, I guess I'm not the only one to have done so and in the fog and rain it looks like a road.

It's unlikely that every instance of drunk driving is going to ruin a life. The idea that it will do so is absurd and demonstrably wrong. It is also essential to add that I was very, very lucky. I have no idea how I don't have an OUI. I've never had one. I no longer drink so I no longer drink and drive. After a number of events similar to the example listed above, I opted to quit drinking. I had to and it sucked but I'm doing fine. I've reached the point where I was comfortable having two drinks during the holidays and haven't actually had any desire to drink since but I figure I should remain alert to my past.

Oddly, I was a functional addict for years. It was after retiring that I stopped being functional. My consumption didn't increase much. My behavior changed a lot. I became a "sloppy drunk." I have no idea why it worked like that.

Either way, I'd never drink and drive again (I don't imagine). It's crazy to think that all drunk driving results in accidents. That's simply not true. You might just as well believe in Santa Clause. This is not endorsing drunk driving but is a warning against it. Chances are good, most people aren't that lucky and the risk is simply too high. The worst thing I learned was that I could close an eye and only see one road and one lane instead of seeing double. Yes, I have used that. Yes, I do regret my decision to do so.

Don't drive drunk. It's just not worth the risks and you're not just risking your own life. I've done it. It was stupid, irresponsible, and risky.